arXiv:1210.0184v2 [math-ph] 2 Nov 2013 J don in adjoint aetlsmer hc sabuddoperator bounded a is which symmetry damental eaal ri space overview Krein short separable A and Introduction 1 h oorps[o,A] o nt dimension finite for AI], [Bog, monographs the rdc,o qiaety fi satisfies it if equivalently, or product, hswork this nivril,buddoperator bounded invertible, An h ierfntoa soitdto associated functional linear the K h neeti anyo h aeo infinite of case the on mainly is interest The eakbesaiiyudrprubtosa icvrdb discovered as perturbations under stability remarkable a on ena o-eeeaeqartcfr fsignature of form quadratic non-degenerate a as seen -unitary by S 1 ,ψ φ, SN 75,5D2 58J30 53D12, 47B50, MSCN: examples. several by illustrated are on ene ne sitoue.Tesrc ucaso essenti of subclass strict The introduced. is index Zehnder o all for called ytesgaueof b distinguished signature be the can by which components of number countable cmoe ynra ievle,nml sltdeigenval isolated namely eigenvalues, normal by (composed S ietv prtr osrigteidfiiesaa produc scalar indefinite the conserving operators Bijective 1 K 7→ K ∈ T K o ah nthe in paths For . J z o fbscfcsaotKensae and spaces Krein about facts basic of lot A . = a the has uiay uha operator an Such -unitary. nteui circle unit the on H ⊕ H eatetMteai,UiesttElne-üneg G Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universität Mathematik, Department φ of ∗ Jψ S 1 ihaHletspace Hilbert a with J rflcinproperty -reflection locle nidfiiesaa rdc nti otx.He context. this in product scalar indefinite an called also , J K intr n pcrlflow spectral and Signature -unitary etitdt h iesaeo l ievle on eigenvalues all of eigenspace the to restricted sasprbecmlxHletsaefrihdwt so-cal a with furnished space Hilbert complex separable a is S 1 Fehl prtr nitreto ne iia oteCo the to similar index intersection an operators -Fredholm S 1 T n essentially and , emn Schulz-Baldes Hermann φ ∈ yteRezterm hti,tebai h ia notation. Dirac the in bra the is, that theorem, Riesz the by B J ( T K T S = ) sdfie obe to defined is ∗ 1 JT scalled is Abstract σ n H F ehl operators -Fredholm ( dim( = T n nti grading this in and 1 0 = = ) 1 n S J − 1 J loi Y,GR.Tespectrum The GLR]. [YS, in also gpe fteei nydsrt spectrum discrete only is there if -gapped 0 σ J 1 where H ( ( ∈ uiayi tcnevsteidfiiescalar indefinite the conserves it if -unitary T ,n n, ) ) B h udmna ymtycnas be also can symmetry fundamental The . − . S ( ) 1 K ri Ke n efn n Lidskii and Gelfand and [Kre] Krein y 1 n tidcsassulna omon form sesquilinear a induces it and , utemr,tedsrt spectrum discrete the Furthermore, . Fehl if -Fredholm J T ) uiayoeaoscnb on in found be can operators -unitary ∗ ally satisfying naKenspace Krein a on t eoe h sa ibr space Hilbert usual the denotes oooyivratgiven invariant homotopy a y e ffiiemlilct)enjoys multiplicity) finite of ues S 1 gpe prtr a a has operators -gapped T J S ermany 2 1 − hs concepts These . = z 1 1 sFredholm is and ( K re J , J φ nley- ) σ ∗ = are ( e fun- led denotes T J ) ∗ In . fa of [GL] in the finite dimensional case. Even eigenvalue collisions stay on S1 whenever J is definite on the associated eigenspace. These results readily extend to the discrete spectrum in the infinite dimensional situation, and hold under certain further conditions also for essential spectrum (see Theorem 2.5.23 in [AI]). For the convenience of the reader and because it is relevant in the sequel, the main facts of stability theory for the discrete spectrum on S1 are reviewed in Section 3.4. This work is about Fredholm properties of J-unitary operators and homotopy invariants for associated operator classes. A J-unitary T is said to be S1-Fredholm if T z 1 is a Fredholm − operator for all z S1. It is said to be essentially S1-gapped if there is only discrete spectrum on S1. The associated∈ operator classes are denoted by F( ,J) and GU( ,J). Both are open subsets of the J-unitary operators. The essentially S1-gappedK J-unitaries formK a strict subset of the S1-Fredholm operators, as is shown by an explicit example in Section 6.4. This example also shows that the property to be essentially S1-gapped is not stable under compact (actually even finite dimensional) perturbations, while the S1-Fredholm property clearly is compactly stable. The first main topic of the paper is the signature Sig(T ) of an essentially S1-gapped J- unitary T . It is defined as the difference of the number of positive and negative eigenvalues of J restricted to the generalized eigenspace of all eigenvalues on S1 (see Section 5.2). The signature is a homotopy invariant (Theorem 8, based on Krein stability theory) which is trivial in finite dimension, but in infinite dimension it permits to split the set GU( ,J) of essentially S1-gapped J-unitaries into disjoint open components, similar as the FredholmK index does for the Fredholm operators. It is actually simple to produce examples with non-trivial signature, see Section 5.2, so that all components are non-empty. Furthermore, non-trivial signatures appear in applications. Section 6.8 consideres the J-unitary transfer operator of a half-space discrete magnetic Schödinger operator (Harper model). Its signature is then equal to the number of edge modes weighted by the sign of the group velocity, and this latter number is known to be equal to a Chern number of the planar Harper model. It is reasonable to expect that there is also a theory of essentially R-gapped J-self-adjoint operators and associated signature invariants. The second main topic concerns the homotopy theory of paths in F( ,J) of S1-Fredholm K operators. This uses the construction (Theorem 5) of a unitary operator V (T ) on which can be associated to every J-unitary operator T because its graph is Lagrangian. It is explicitlyK given by 1 1 a b (a∗)− bd− T = V (T ) = 1 1 . c d 7→ d− c d− − One then has the equivalence of Tφ = φ, φ , with V (T )φ = φ (Theorem 6). Furthermore, it turns out (Theorem 7) that for an S1-Fredholm∈ K operator T , the point 1 is not in the essential spectrum of V (T ). Hence for paths t T in the S1-Fredholm operators one can associate a 7→ t spectral flow of t V (Tt) through 1. Due to the above simple connection between the eigenvalue equations, this spectral7→ flow is an intersection index counting the weighted number of periodic solutions φt of Ttφt = φt along the path (see Section 4.2). Actually, this index can also be understood as a Bott-Maslov index [Bot, Mas], albeit in an infinite dimensional space. More precisely, the unitary V (Tt) describes a Lagrangian subspace given by a certain adequate graph of Tt, called the twisted graph. Therefore the above spectral flow can be considered as an infinite dimensional and modified version of the Conley-Zehnder index [CZ]. Because of this connection,
2 this paper also contains in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 a streamlined exposition of the Bott-Maslov index in infinite dimension. It is based on the use of unitaries to describe Lagrangian subspaces and the associated spectral flow similar as above. This approach does not use the Souriau map as prior works [Fur], or several charts as the approach in [GPP]. The Bott-Maslov index and the above intersection number (of Conley-Zehnder type) is of little use if one has no information about the orientation of intersections (or equivalently the orientation of the crossings of the spectral flow). These orientations have to be studied for every given concrete path. A standard example is a linear Hamiltonian system (here in infinite dimension) for which there is some monotonicity (Theorem 10) that is actually at the basis of Sturm-Liouville oscillation theory [Bot, Lid, SB1, SB2]. Another example of a monotonous path counts the bound states of Schrödinger equations (see Section 6.2). Furthermore, associated to 1 ıt every essentially S -gapped J-unitary T there is a path t [0, 2π) e− T in F( ,J). Its intersection number is equal to the signature Sig(T ) (Theorem∈ 9). This7→ particular pathK is not monotonous, but the orientation of every crossing is given by the inertia of the corresponding eigenvalue of T on S1. The author’s initial motivation to study S1-Fredholm operators roots in applications to solid state physics systems. Just as for the Harper model alluded to above, the half-space transfer operators of periodic systems at energies in a gap of the full-space operator are S1-Fredholm operators. Each eigenvalue on the unit circle then corresponds to an edge mode (a peculiarity is that a continuum of eigenvalues on S1 corresponds to a flat band of edge modes). These edge modes determine the boundary physics, and systems for which it is non-trivial are called topological insulators. Therefore the signature (and its variants for classes of operators with further symmetries) of associated half-space transfer operators allows to distinguish between different topological insulators and its homotopy invariance also shows their structural stability. This application will be explored in a subsequent publication [SV]. Finally a few words on the structure and style of the present paper. It is basically self- contained with detailed proofs except for a few functional analytical facts resembled in the appendices. Of course, this makes the paper lengthy. However, a large part of the text is anyway necessary in order to introduce notations. Moreover, the author hopes that some readers may appreciate the concise treatment of some already known results and that experts can easily localize the new results. Section 2 concerns the basic geometry of Krein spaces and introduces the Bott-Maslov index. Section 3 recalls some important properties of J-unitaries including Krein stability analysis, and provides a detailed analysis of the unitary V (T ) introduced above. Then Sections 4 and 5 study the S1-Fredholm operators and essentially S1-gapped operators respectively, as well as the intersection number and signature. Finally Section 6 provides examples to illustrate the general concepts of the paper. Notations: Vectors in Hilbert space are denoted by v,w and φ, ψ ; frames in (see ∈ H ∈ K K Appendix B for a definition) are denoted by Φ, Ψ; subspaces of (or in Appendix B) are described by , ; bounded operators on are described by smallK lettersH a,b,c,d B( ), while boundedE operatorsF on rather by capitalH letters T,S,K B( ); unitary operators∈ H are K ∈ K denoted by u U( ) and U, V U( ); the star is used for the passage to dual space in ∈ H ∈ K ∗ and (notably, φ∗ψ denotes the scalar product of φ, ψ ) as well as the Hilbert space K H ∈ K
3 adjoint operator; norms of vectors and the operator norm are written as . ; finally the essential k k spectrum σess(T ) is the spectrum of T without the discrete spectrum (thus in this work the essential spectrum is not given by those z for which T z1 is Fredholm). − 2 Geometry of subspaces of a Krein space
2.1 Isotropy and orthogonality in Krein space This section recalls a few definitions (e.g. [Bog, AI]), then provides some formulas for projections in terms of frames used later on.
Definition 1 Let be a subspace of a Krein space ( ,J). E K (i) is called positive definite for J if and only if φ∗Jφ > 0 for all non-zero φ . Similarly, E ∈E E is called negative definite for J if φ∗Jφ < 0 for all non-zero φ . Moreover, is called definite if it is either positive or negative definite. ∈E E
(ii) is called degenerate for J if and only if there is a non-zero vector φ such that φ∗Jψ =0 forE all ψ . If is not degenerate, it is called non-degenerate. ∈E ∈E E (iii) is called isotropic for J if and only if φ∗Jψ =0 for all φ, ψ . E ∈E (iv) A maximally isotropic subspace is called Lagrangian.
(v) is called coisotropic for J if and only if φ∗Jψ =0 for all ψ implies that φ . E ∈E ∈E Let us point out that the maximality condition implies that Lagrangian subspaces are always closed. Note also that definite subspaces are clearly non-degenerate, but the inverse is not true.
Definition 2 Let and ′ be two subspaces of a Krein space ( ,J). E E K (i) and ′ are called J-orthogonal if and only if φ∗Jψ =0 for all φ and ψ ′. We then E E ∈E ∈E also write ′. E⊥E b (ii) Given , its J-orthogonal complement ⊥ is given by all vectors φ satisfying φ∗Jψ =0 for all ψE b. E ∈K ∈E (iii) If and ′ are J-orthogonal and have trivial intersection, their sum is denoted by + ′. E E E E Just as in euclidean geometry, J-orthogonal complements are closed. The followingb lemma collects a few direct connections with the notions above.
Lemma 1 Let be a subspace of . b b E K (i) ( ⊥)⊥ = E E b (ii) is isotropic if and only if ⊥ E E⊂Eb (iii) is coisotropic if and only if ⊥ E E ⊂Eb (iv) is Lagrangian if and only if = ⊥ E E E b (v) is non-degenerate if and only if ⊥ = 0 E E∩E { }
4 b Other than in euclidean geometry, ⊥ and do not span , in general. But the following result shows that the dimensions add upE as usualE (a statementK that is not very interesting in infinite dimension).
Proposition 1 Let and be subspaces of . Then: Eb bF K (i) ⊥ ⊥ E⊂Fb b ⇐⇒ F ⊂Eb b b b (ii) ⊥ + ⊥ =( )⊥ and ( + )⊥ = ⊥ ⊥ E F E∩Fb E F E ∩F (iii) Ker(J )= ⊥ |E E∩Eb (iv) dim( ) + dim( ⊥)=2n E E (v) Lagrangian subspaces of have dimension n. K
Proof. (i) to (iii) are obvious. (iv) For the usual orthogonal complement ⊥ to (w.r.t. to the E E euclidean scalar product on ), one has dim( ) + dim( ⊥)=2n. It is hence sufficient to provide K b E E b b an isomorphism between ⊥ and ⊥. Indeed, one has J ⊥ = ⊥. (v) follows from ⊥ = . ✷ E E E E E E Two closed subspaces are said to form a Fredholm pair if both their intersection and the codimension of their sum are finite dimensional. A frame for a subspace is a partial isometry from some Hilbert space onto it. More details on these Hilbert space concepts are recollected in Appendix B.
Proposition 2 Let and be a Fredholm pair of Lagrangian subspaces with trivial intersection and let Φ and Ψ beE framesF for them respectively. Suppose that = + . Then the oblique projection P with range and kernel is given by H E F E F 1 P = Φ Ψ∗J Φ − Ψ∗ J. Proof. This follows directly from Proposition 41 because JΨ is a frame for ⊥. ✷ b F As already pointed out, ⊥ and do not span in general. If, however, is non-degenerate, then this holds as shown inE the followingE result. K E
Proposition 3 Let be a closed non-degenerate subspace of with frame Φ. Let us suppose E K that 0 σess(Φ∗JΦ). Then 6∈ b = + ⊥ , (1) K E E b and the oblique projection P with range and kernel ⊥ is given by E b E 1 P = Φ(Φ∗J Φ)− Φ∗J. (2)
It satsifies P ∗ = JPJ.
Proof. For (1) one has to show that every φ can be written as φ = Φv + ψ with unique b ∈ K vectors u and ψ ⊥. For that purpose, let us multiply this equation from the left by Φ∗J. As ∈E Φ∗Jψ = 0, this gives Φ∗Jφ = Φ∗J Φ v. Now the non-degeneracy of shows that 0 is not an E
5 eigenvalue of the self-adjoint operator Φ∗JΦ. As there is no essential spectrum by hypothesis, it follows that Φ∗JΦ is invertible. Thus
1 v = Φ∗J Φ − Φ∗J φ . b Then ψ = φ Φ v is by construction in ⊥. As there was no freedom in this construction, uniqueness of −v and ψ is guarenteed. Furthermore,E the projection P is given by Pφ = Φv leading to (2). From this the last formula is now readily deduced. ✷
2.2 The inertia and signature of subspaces
First let us recall that for any self-adjoint operator H = H∗ (identified with a quadratic form), the inertia ν(H)=(ν+, ν , ν0) is defined by the dimensions of the spectral projection of H on − (0, ), ( , 0) and 0 respectively. The inertia is sometimes also called signature, but here ∞ −∞ { } the signature of H is Sig(H)= ν+ ν . Another number used in this context is the Witt index − − min ν+, ν + ν0 (this is equal to the dimension of the maximally isotropic subspaces). If ν0 − vanishes,{ it} is often suppressed in the inertia. If H acts on an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, all entries of the inertia can be infinite, but, of course, one is most interested in cases where some of them are finite. The main result about the inertia used below is Sylvester’s law stating that 1 ν(C∗HC) = ν(H) for any invertible operator C. Furthermore, one has ν(H− ) = ν(H) for any invertible H.
Definition 3 Let be a subspace of a Krein space ( ,J). If Φ is a frame for , then let us set E K E J = Φ∗JΦ. The inertia ν( )=(ν+( ), ν ( ), ν0( )) and signature Sig( ) of are the inertia E E E − E E E E and signature of J , that is, ν( )= ν(J ) and Sig( )= Sig(J ). E E E E E Sylvester’s law of inertia implies that the definition of ν( ) and Sig( ) is independent of the choice of the frame Φ. Let us note a few obvious connectionsE betweenE inertia and the other notions introduced above.
Lemma 2 Let be a subspace of . E K (i) isotropic ν+( )= ν ( )=0 E ⇐⇒ E − E (ii) non-degenerate ν ( )=0 E ⇐⇒ 0 E (iii) positive definite ν0( )= ν ( )=0 E ⇐⇒ E − E (iv) negative definite ν ( )= ν ( )=0 E ⇐⇒ 0 E + E (v) ν+( )+ ν ( )+ ν0( ) = dim( ) E − E E E The following result provides an alternative way to calculate the inertia and the signature of a non-degenerate subspace.
Proposition 4 Let be a closed non-degenerate subspace of with frame Φ. Let us suppose E K b that 0 σess(Φ∗JΦ). Further let P be the oblique projection given by (2). Then ⊥ is also non-degenerate6∈ and E b b = + ⊥ , ν( ) + ν( ⊥)=(n, n, 0) . K E E E E b 6 Furthermore ν+( ) = ν+(P ∗JP ) , ν ( ) = ν (P ∗JP ) . E − E − b Proof. Let Φ and Ψ be frames for and ⊥. Then (Φ, Ψ) is invertible in and E E K Φ∗JΦ 0 (Φ, Ψ)∗ J (Φ, Ψ) = . 0 Ψ∗JΨ From this the first claims can be deduced. As to the last one, let us first of all note 1 P ∗JP = JΦ(Φ∗JΦ)− Φ∗J. Therefore 1 ν(P ∗JP ) = ν(Φ(Φ∗JΦ)− Φ∗) .
Because the kernel of Φ∗ has dimension 2n dim( ), it now follows that − E 1 ν(P ∗JP ) = ν((Φ∗JΦ)− ) 0, 0, 2n dim( ) . − − E From this the result follows. ✷
2.3 Lagrangian subspaces This section further analyzes the Grassmanian L( ,J) of J-Lagrangian subspaces. It will be K useful to describe Lagrangian subspaces by Lagrangian frames. Because Lagrangian subspaces are half-dimensional and closed, it is suggestive to choose these Lagrangian frames as linear maps Φ: = with Φ∗Φ= 1 and such that Ran(Φ) is a Lagrangian subspace. This H→K H ⊕ H latter fact is equivalent to Φ∗JΦ=0. The set of Lagrangian frames is a U( )-cover of L( ,J) H K because Φ and Φu span the same subspace for every u U( ). Moreover, ΦΦ∗ is an orthogonal ∈ H projection in with range given by the range of Φ. The complementary orthogonal projection K JΦ(JΦ)∗ projects on the J-Lagrangian subspace with frame JΦ and one has
1 = ΦΦ∗ + JΦ(JΦ)∗ . (3) Clearly, also the set of all orthogonal projections with range given by a J-Lagrangian subspace is in bijection with L( ,J). K Theorem 1 Let Ψ be a fixed Lagrangian frame. For any other Lagrangian frame Φ, introduce bounded operators x and y on by H Φ =Ψ x + J Ψ y , (4) and define the stereographic projection of Φ along Ψ by 1 π (Φ) = (x + y)(x y)− = (x + y)(x y)∗ . (5) Ψ − − Then πΨ is well-defined and unitary, namely πΨ(Φ) U( ). Moreover, one has πΨ(Φ) = πΨ(Φu) for any u U( ) so that π factors to a map on ∈L( ,JH) also denoted by π . It establishes a ∈ H Ψ K Ψ bijection π : L( ,J) U( ) with inverse given by Ψ K → H 1 1 1 π− (u)= Ψ (u + 1) + J Ψ (u 1) , (6) Ψ 2 2 − where the r.h.s.’s of this equation gives one representative in L( ,J). K 7 Proof. Equation (4) can be rewritten as
x Φ = (Ψ,J Ψ) . y Now one directly checks that (Ψ,J Ψ) is unitary. Thus
x = (Ψ,J Ψ)∗ Φ y is a frame, that is x∗x + y∗y = 1. Furthermore, one has
x ∗ x x ∗ 0 1 x 0 = Φ∗JΦ = (Ψ,J Ψ)∗J(Ψ,J Ψ) = = x∗y + y∗x , y y y 1 0 y so that (x y)∗(x y) = 1 . ± ± This shows that πΨ is well-defined and unitary. That the inverse is indeed given by (6) can be readily checked. ✷ 1 1 Remarks A standard choice for a reference J-Lagrangian subspace is Ψ=2− 2 1 . In this case, the stereographic projection is simply denoted by π = π and takes the following particularly Ψ simple form: 1 a π(Φ) = ab− , Φ = . (7) b This also shows that πΨ is indeed a generalization of the standard stereographic projection in R2. If Φ: spans a Lagrangian subspace , but only Φc is a frame for some invertible H→K E c B( ), then one can still define x and y by (4) and the first formula in (5) remains valid, namely ∈ H 1 π( )=(x + y)(x y)− . However, the factors x y are not unitary any more. Furthermore, π E − ± allows to calculate πΨ via α π (Φ) = (√2β)∗π(Ψ)∗π(Φ)(√2β) , Ψ = . (8) Ψ β
As √2β is unitary, this shows that the spectra of πΨ(Φ) and π(Ψ)∗π(Φ) coincide. Let us also note that for any u U( ) ∈ H πΨu(Φ) = u∗πΨ(Φ)u .
In particular, the spectrum of πΨ(Φ) does not depend on Ψ, but only the Lagrangian subspace spanned by it. These spectral properties are of importance in view of the following result. ⋄ The dimension of the intersection of two Lagrangian subspaces can be conveniently read off from the spectral theory of the associated stereographic projection, as shows the next proposition.
Proposition 5 Let and be two J-Lagrangian subspaces of with Lagrangian frames Φ and Ψ respectively. ThenE F K
dim = dim Ker(Ψ∗J Φ) = dim Ker(π (Φ) 1) = codim( + ) . E∩F Ψ − E F 8 Proof. Let us begin with the inequality of the first equality. Let p N be the dimension of . Then there are two partial isometries≤ v,w : ℓ2( 1,...,p )∈ ∪{∞}such that Φv = Ψw. E∩F { } → H Then Ψ∗JΦw = Ψ∗JΨv = 0 so that the kernel of Ψ∗JΦ is at least of dimension p. Inversely, 2 given an isometry w : ℓ ( 1,...,p ) such that Ψ∗JΦw =0, one deduces that (JΨ)∗Φw =0. As the spans of Ψ and J{Ψ are orthogonal} → H and span all by (3), it follows that the span of Ψw lies in the span of Φ. This shows the other inequality andK hence proves the first equality. Next let us first note that the dimension of the kernel of Ψ∗JΦ does not depend on the choice of the representative. Using the representative given in (6), one finds 1 Ψ∗J Φ = (π (Φ) 1) , (9) 2 Ψ − which implies the second equality. Finally the third equality follows from
codim( + ) = dim ( + )⊥ = dim ⊥ ( )⊥ = dim J J , E F E F E ∩ F E ∩ F and the fact that J is an isomorphism. ✷
Theorem 2 Let and be two J-Lagrangian subspaces with associated Lagrangian frames Φ and Ψ. Then theE followingF are equivalent: (i) and form a Fredholm pair E F (ii) Ψ∗JΦ is a Fredholm operator on H (iii) π (Φ) 1 is a Fredholm operator on Ψ − H (iv) 1 is not in the essential spectrum of πΨ(Φ) The index Ind( , ) associated to the Fredholm pair of Lagrangian subspaces vanishes. E F Proof. The equivalence of (i) and (ii) follows from Theorem 11 in Appendix B. The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) follows from the identity (9). The equivalence of (iii) and (iv) holds for any unitary operator πΨ(Φ), by the same argument showing that a selfadjoint operator is Fredholm if and only if 0 is not in the essential spectrum. The last claim follows immediately from the definition of the index (see Appendix B) and Proposition 5. ✷
The theorem shows that the spectrum of the unitary πΨ(Φ) allows to determine a distance between the two subspaces. If its eigenvalues are phases close to 0, then one is near an intersection between the subspaces. The link of the angle spectrum σ( , ) between the subspaces (see E F Appendix B for a definition) to the spectrum of πΨ(Φ) is discussed in the following result.
Proposition 6 Let Φ and Ψ be Lagrangian frames. Then ϕ eıϕ σ(π (Φ)) with ϕ ( π, π] | | σ( , ) . ∈ Ψ ∈ − ⇐⇒ 2 ∈ E F Proof. Using (6), one finds 1 Ψ∗Φ = (π (Φ) + 1) , 2 Ψ so than 1 Φ∗ΨΨ∗Φ = (π (Φ) + 1)∗(π (Φ) + 1) . 4 Ψ Ψ 9 Now by spectral calculus of π (Φ) the claim follows from 1 eıϕ +1 2 = cos2( ϕ ). ✷ Ψ 4 | | 2 Note that the spectrum of πΨ(Φ) contains more information than the angle spectrum, namely a supplementary sign for each eigenvalue. In other words, a Lagrangian subspace comes with a second Lagrangian frame J orthogonal to , and within the associated quarterF plane splitting, one can define angles togetherF with an orientation.F
2.4 The Bott-Maslov index in infinite dimensions Given a fixed Lagrangian subspace in ( ,J) and associated frame Ψ for , let us introduce the Fredholm Lagrangian GrassmanianF w.r.t.K by F F FL( , J, ) = L( ,J) ( , ) form Fredholm pair . K F {E ∈ K | E F } FL One is now interested in (continuous) paths γ = (γt)t [t0,t1) in ( , J, ) and in counting the ∈ K F number of points t with non-trivial intersections γt , however, with an orientation as weight. This weighted sum of intersections is then the Bott-Maslov∩F index which will now be defined in detail as a spectral flow. As in the finite dimensional case [Arn], the singular cycle of Lagrangian subspaces with non-trivial intersections is the stratified space defined by
S( ) = S ( ) , S ( ) = FL( , J, ) dim = l . F l F l F E ∈ K F E∩F l 1 [≥
Note that for FL( , J, ) it never happens that dim( )= . Under the stereographic E ∈ K F E∩F ∞ projection πΨ one gets from Theorem 2
π S( ) = Uess( ) , Ψ F H where Uess( ) are those u U( ) satisfying 1 σess(u), and furthermore from Proposition 5 H ∈ H 6∈
π S ( ) = u U( ) 1 σess(u) and dim(ker(u 1)) = l . (10) Ψ l F { ∈ H | 6∈ − } Let now γ = (γt)t [t0,t1) be a (continuous) path as above for which, for sake of simplicity, the ∈ number of intersections t [t , t ) γ S( ) is finite and does not contain the initial point { ∈ 0 1 | t ∈ F } t0. Associated to γ is the path u = π (γ ) Uess( ) , t Ψ t ∈ H for which a spectral flow SF((ut)t [t0,t1)) through 1 is defined in an obvious manner, as recalled ∈ in Appendix E. This spectral flow now defines the Bott-Maslov intersection number or index of the path γ w.r.t. the singular cycle S( ): F
BM(γ, ) = SF (ut)t [t0,t1) . (11) F ∈ Let us collect without detailed proof a few basic properties of the index.
U Proposition 7 For T ( ,J) and γ as above, set Tγ =(Tγt)t [t0,t1). ∈ K ∈ FL (i) Let the path γ +γ′ denote the concatenation with a second path γ′ =(γt)t [t1,t2) in ( , J, ). ∈ K F 10 Then BM(γ + γ′, ) = BM(γ, )+ BM(γ′, ) . F F F (ii) Given a second path γ′ =(γ′) in FL( ′,J ′, ′) where ′ is a Lagrangian subspace in a t [t0,t1) K F F Krein space ( ′,J ′), one has, with denoting the symplectic direct sum, K ⊕
BM(γ γ′, ′) = BM(γ, ) + BM(γ′, ′) . ⊕ F ⊕Fb F F (iii) One has BM(T γ,T )=bBM(γ, b ). F F (iv) For a closed path γ, BM(γ, ) is independent of as long as it remains in FL( , J, ). F F K F 3 Basic analysis of J-unitary operators
Let U( ,J) denote the set of J-unitary operators, namely all invertible T B( ) satisfying K ∈ K T ∗JT = J.
3.1 Möbius action of J-unitaries Proposition 8 U( ,J) is a -invariant group. One has K ∗ a b U( ,J) = a∗a c∗c = 1 , d∗d b∗b = 1 , a∗b = c∗d (12) K c d − − a b = aa∗ bb∗ = 1 , dd∗ cc∗ = 1 , ac∗ = bd∗ , c d − −
1 1 and in this representation a and d are invertible and satisfy a− 1, d− 1. Also 1 1 1 1 k k ≤ k k ≤ a− b < 1, d− c < 1, bd− < 1 and ca− < 1. k k k k k k k k 1 1 Proof. The group property is obvious. Inverting T ∗JT = T shows T − J(T ∗)− = J so that J = T JT ∗. The relations in (12) are equivalent to T ∗JT = T and T JT ∗ = T . The fact that 1 1 a is invertible follows from aa∗ 1. Furthermore aa∗ bb∗ = 1 implies that a− b(a− b)∗ = 1 1 1 ≥ − 1 a− (a− )∗ < 1, so that a− b < 1. The same argument leads to the other inequalities. ✷ − k k The following result is well-known [KS].
Theorem 3 The group U( ,J) acts on the Siegel disc D( ) = u B( ) u < 1 and also K H { ∈ H |k k } on U( ) by Möbius transformation denoted by a dot and defined by: H
a b 1 u = (au + b)(cu + d)− , u B( ) . c d · ∈ H Proof. One first has to show that for u B( ) with u < 1 and T U( ,J) the inverse in ∈ H k k ∈ K 1 the Möbius transformation T u is well-defined. By Proposition 8, (cu + d) = d(1 + d− cu) is · indeed invertible. Then the identities of Proposition 8 imply
(cu + d)∗ (cu + d) (au + b)∗ (au + b) = 1 u∗ u . (13) − − 11 1 1 Now multiplying (13) from the left by ((cu + d)∗)− and the right by (cu + d)− and using 1 u∗u> 0 shows (T u)∗(T u) < 1 so that T u D( ). By the same argument, if u U( ), − · · · ∈ H ∈ H then T u U( ). A short algebraic calculation also shows that (T T ′) u = T (T ′ u). ✷ · ∈ H · · · The action of U( ,J) on U( ) is the stereographic projection of the natural geometric action of U( ,J) on the LagrangianK H Grassmannian L( ,J). This natural action sends a subspace K K L( ,J) to T L( ,J). Let Φ be a frame for , then T Φ is not a again a frame, but E ∈ K E ∈ K1 E 2 T Φ = T Φ (T Φ)∗(T Φ) − is a frame for T . Thus one indeed has using the above Möbius action:· E π T Φ = T π Φ . (14) · · The following calculation will turn out to be useful later on.
at bt Proposition 9 Let t Tt = be a differentiable path in U( ,J) and u U( ). Then 7→ ct dt K ∈ H 1 u ∗ u 1 (T u)∗∂ (T u) = (c u + d )− ∗ T ∗J∂ T (c u + d )− . t · t t · t t 1 t t t 1 t t 1 Proof. For sake of notational simplicity, let us suppress the index t. Using (T u)∗ =(T u)− · · and the laws of operator differentiation, one finds
1 1 (T u)∗∂ (T u) = (T u)∗ ∂(au + b) (cu + d)− ∂(cu + d) (cu + d)− · t · t · − 1 1 = (cu + d)− ∗ (au + b)∗∂(au + b) (cu + d)∗∂(cu + d) (cu + d)− . − This directly leads to the identity. ✷
3.2 Basic spectral properties and Riesz projections of J-unitaries Most results in the section go at least back to [Lan], and can also be found in [Bog]. Standard notations for the spectrum as well as the continuous, discrete, point and residual spectrum are used.
Proposition 10 Let T be a J-unitary. 1 (i) σ(T )= σ(T )− 1 − (ii) σc(T )= σc(T ) 1 − (iii) σd(T )= σd(T ) 1 (iv) z σr(T ) implies z− σp(T ) ∈ 1 ∈ (v) z σ (T ) implies z− σ (T ) σ (T ) ∈ p ∈ p ∪ r (vi) σ (T ) S1 = r ∩ ∅ Proof. The main identity used in the proof is
1 1 1 T z1 = J ∗((T ∗)− z1)J = zJ(T ∗)− (T z− 1)∗J. − − −
12 (i) As J and T ∗ are invertible (with bounded inverses), invertibility of T z1 is equivalent to 1 − invertibility of T z− 1. (ii) Recall that the continuous spectrum consists of those points z for which T z1 is bijective− and has dense range. Again these properties are conserved in the above − 1 identity. (iii) Due to (i) only remains to show that the isolated points z, z− σ(T ) both have finite same multiplicity. But this follows from Proposition 11 proved independently∈ below, when combined with Proposition 42(v). (iv) Let z σp(T ) with eigenvector φ. Then by (i) one has 1 1 ∈ 1 z− σ(T ) and wants to exclude z− σc(T ), namely that T z− 1 is bijective with dense range.∈ Let us suppose the contrary. Then∈ there exists a ψ with− ∈K 1 1 1 1 1 0 = φ∗J(T z− 1)ψ = φ∗((T − )∗ z− 1)Jψ = z− ((z1 T )φ)∗(T − )∗Jψ . 6 − − − But this is a contradiction to Tφ = zφ. (v) Let z σ (T ). Then there exists some Jψ such ∈ r ∈K that for all φ ∈K 1 1 0 =(Jψ)∗(T z1)φ = z ((T z− 1)ψ)∗(T ∗)− Jφ . − − 1 But this shows that T ψ = z− ψ. (vi) is a corollary of (iv) and (v). ✷ Let T be a J-unitary and ∆ σ(T ) be a separated spectral subset, namely a closed subset ⊂ which has trivial intersection with the closure of σ(T ) ∆. Then P∆ denotes the Riesz projection of T on ∆ and furthermore = Ran(P ) and =\ Ker(P ). If ∆ = λ , let us also simply E∆ ∆ F∆ ∆ { } write Pλ, λ and λ. The definition of P∆ and a few basic properties which do not pend on the KreinE space structureF are recalled in Appendix C. Next follows a list of properties of Riesz projections of J-unitaries. Proposition 11 Let T be a J-unitary and ∆ a separated spectral subset. Then
(P )∗ = J ∗ P −1 J, ⊥ = J −1 . ∆ (∆) F∆ E(∆) 1 Proof. First of all, let us note that indeed (∆)− is in the spectrum of T by Proposition 10, and 1 thus by the spectral mapping theorem one also knows that ∆ is in the spectrum of T − . Let us take the adjoint of the definition (53) of the Riesz projection:
dz 1 (P )∗ = (z T ∗)− , ∆ 2πı − IΓ where Γ is the complex conjugate of Γ, hence encircling ∆ instead of ∆. It is also positively oriented even though the complex conjugated of the path Γ would have inverse orientation, but the imaginary factor compensates this. Thus P∆(T )∗ = P∆(T ∗) if one adds the initial operator 1 as an argument to the Riesz projection. Next let us use T ∗ = J ∗T − J:
dz 1 1 (P )∗ = J ∗ (z T − )− J. ∆ 2πı − IΓ Now Proposition 42(ii) concludes the proof of the first identity. As to the second,
⊥ = Ker(P )⊥ = Ran(P ∗ ) = Ran(JP −1 J) = J −1 , F∆ ∆ ∆ (∆) E(∆) so that the proof is complete. ✷ When combined with Proposition 42(v) one obtains the following.
13 1 Corollary 1 Let ∆ be a disjoint separated spectral subset of a J-unitary satisfying ∆ ∆− = . ∩ ∅ Then dim( ) = dim( −1 ). E∆ E∆
Proposition 12 Let ∆ and ∆′ be disjoint separated spectral subsets of a J-unitary satisfying 1 ∆ ∆− = . Then and ′ are J-orthogonal. Similarly, ⊥ and ⊥′ are J-orthogonal. ′ ∩ ∅ E∆ E∆ F∆ F∆ Proof. By Propositions 11 and 42, one has
′ −1 ′ P∆∗ JP∆ = JP∆ P∆ = 0 .
But this is implies that and ′ are J-orthogonal. The other claim is proved similarly. ✷ E∆ E∆ Proposition 13 Let T be a J-unitary and suppose that its spectrum is decomposed σ(T ) = L 1 l=1 ∆l into disjoint separated spectral subsets ∆l satisfying ∆l = (∆l)− . Then, with pairwise J-orthogonal subspaces, S = + ... + . (15) K E∆1 E∆L Moreover, each summand is non-degenerate. b b
Proof. The fact that = ∆1 + ... + ∆L follows from Proposition 42(iv). Moreover, Propo- sition 12 implies that theK subspacesE areE pairwise J-orthogonal. To prove the last claim, let us suppose that φ ∆ is in the kernel of J . Then φ is J-orthogonal to ∆ and hence by the l E∆l l above J-orthogonal∈E to all . But as J is non-degenerate,| this implies thatEφ =0. ✷ K
3.3 Signatures of generalized eigenspaces of normal eigenvalues In this section, let us fix T U( ,J) which has K normal eigenvalue pairs off the unit circle and k normal eigenvalues on∈ the unitK circle. The eigenvalues off the circle come in pairs and are 1 denoted by (λ , (λ )− ) with λ < 1 and l =1,...,K, and further let the eigenvalues on the circle l l | l| be λ′ ,...,λ′ . Let us denote the span of all associated generalized eigenspaces by , a notation 1 k E= which then coincides with the choice made for essentially S1-gapped operators in Section 5. Now Proposition 13 can be applied and it yields
′ ′ = = λ + ... + λ + λ + −1 + ... + λ + −1 , (16) E E 1 E k E 1 E(λ1) E K E(λK ) with pairwise J-orthogonalb non-degenerateb b summands whichb b all have trivial intersection. As to the dimensions, one has
k K
dim( =) = dim( λ′ )+2 dim( λ ) . E E l E l l l X=1 X=1 Let us set n = dim( ). Let Φ be a frame for and introduce the n n matrices = E= = E= = × = J= = Φ=∗ JΦ= and T= = Φ=∗ T Φ=. Then T= is J=-unitary. For sake of concreteness it can be useful to choose an adequate basis change N corresponding to (16) which brings J= into a particularly simple normal form. It is important to note that N is in general not unitary.
14 1 Proposition 14 There exists an invertible n n matrix N such that both N − T N and = × = = N ∗J=N are block diagonal with blocks of the size of the summands in (16). Moreover, N can be chosen such that the first blocks of N ∗J=N corresponding to eigenvalues on the unit circle are diagonal with diagonal entries equal to 1 or 1 and that the blocks of N ∗J=N corresponding to 0 ı − eigenvalue pairs off the unit circle are ı −0 . Proof. Let Ψ=(ψ1,...,ψn= ) be composed by basis vectors of the summands in (16), respecting 1 the order of (16). Then define N ′ by Φ=N ′ = Ψ. Then clearly (N ′)− T=N ′ is block-diagonal, but because these summands are J-orthogonal, it follows that also (N ′)∗J=N ′ is block-diagonal. Moreover, (N ′)∗J=N ′ is self-adjoint and has no vanishing eigenvalue. In a second step, one can diagonalize the blocks corresponding to eigenvalues on the unit circle and then multiply with adequate invertible diagonal matrices in order to produce eigenvalues 1 and 1. Finally, by − Proposition 12 (applied to ∆ = ∆′ = λl ), the blocks corresponding to eigenvalues off the unit circle are of the form { } 0 A , A∗ 0 where, moreover, A is invertible by Proposition 13, as otherwise the block would be degenerate. Now the basis change
1 0 ∗ 0 A 1 0 0 ı 1 1 1 = − 0 ı A− A∗ 0 0 ı A− ı 1 0 − − can be done within this block. Combining these blockwise operations one obtains N from N ′. ✷
Definition 4 Let λ be a normal eigenvalue of T U( ,J) with generalized eigenspace . Its ∈ K Eλ inertia (ν+(λ), ν (λ)) is defined as follows: − (i) If λ =1, then the inertia is the inertia of λ, namely that of the form J on λ. | | E Eλ E (ii) If λ > 1, then the inertia is equal to (dim( ), 0). | | Eλ (iii) If λ < 1, then the inertia is equal to (0, dim( )). | | Eλ Eigenvalues for which ν+(λ)=0 or ν (λ)=0 are called negative and positive definite respectively. An eigenvalue which is not definite is− called indefinite or of mixed inertia.
In the russian literature [Kre, GL, YS], the terms of first kind, of second kind and of mixed kind are used instead of positive definitive, negative definite and indefinite. Just as for quadratic forms, the inertia is also sometimes called signature and in the present context Krein signature. The inertia of the eigenvalues on the unit circle can be obtained by counting the entries 1 and 1 of the corresponding block in Proposition 14 and there is indeed no vanishing eigenvalue (which− is where ν0(λ)=0 is suppressed in the notation). For eigenvalues off the unit circle the definition of the inertia is rather a convention, which is, however, consistent with Proposition 14 because the inertia of blocks corresponding to + −1 with λ =1 is (dim( ), dim( )). Eλ Eλ | | 6 Eλ Eλ The following result shows that for eigenvalues on the unit circle the definiteness can be checked by only looking at eigenvectors (and hence not the generalized eigenvectors, often also called root vectors).
15 Proposition 15 Let λ be a unit eigenvalue of T U( ,J). Then ∈ K ν (λ) =0 φ∗Jφ > 0 for all eigenvectors φ of λ . ± ⇐⇒ ∓ Proof. The implication “= ” is clear. For the converse, let us show that the condition on the ⇒ r.h.s. actually implies that λ only consists of eigenvectors so that again the definiteness follows. Hence let us suppose thatE there is a non-trivial Jordan block, namely that there are vectors φ, ψ such that Tφ = λφ and T ψ = λψ + φ. Then ∈Eλ 2 φ∗Jψ = φ∗T ∗JT ψ = (λφ)∗J(λψ + φ) = λ φ∗Jψ + λφ∗Jφ . | | Hence 2 λφ∗Jφ = (1 λ ) φ∗Jψ = 0 . −| | But this shows φ∗Jφ =0, which is a contradiction to the hypothesis. ✷ The previous proof actually also shows the following result. Corollary 2 Let λ be a unit eigenvalue of T U( ,J). ∈ K (i) If there is a non-diagonal Jordan block for λ, then λ is indefinite and there exists an eigenvector φ such that φ∗Jφ =0. (ii) If λ is definite, then all Jordan blocks are diagonal. The following is a conservation law of the inertia of all eigenvalues in . E= Proposition 16 The inertia of T U( ,J) as above satisfy ∈ K ν (λ) = ν ( =) . (17) ± ± E λ σ(T=) ∈X Proof. The inertia of the quadratic form J= is (ν+( =), ν ( =)). By Sylvester’s law it is − also equal to the sum of the inertia of the summands itE in theE decomposition (16). Therefore Definition 4 completes the proof. ✷ Proposition 17 The inertia ν(λ) of normal eigenvalues of T U( ,J) depends continuously on the T . ∈ K Proof. First of all, let us recall [Kat, IV.3.5] that the normal eigenvalues of T depend continu- ously on T . Hence the result can be restated as follows. For any continuous path t R T (t) with T (0) = T , the eigenvalues λ(t) can be labelled (at eigenvalue crossings) such that∈ the7→ inertia ν(λ(t)) is constant in the sense that the sum of all inertia of colliding eigenvalues is constant. Clearly it is sufficient to prove this continuity at one point, say t = 0. As the eigenvalues of T off the unit circle stay off the unit circle for t sufficiently small, their inertia are preserved as well. Therefore one only has to consider eigenvalues of T on the unit circle. Hence let λ be such an eigenvalue and P (t) be the finite dimensional Riesz projection of T (t) on all eigenvalues of T (t) converging to λ as t 0. By [GK, Theorem 3.1], the dimension of Ran(P (t)) is constant → in t. Let Φ(t) be a frame for P (t). Then the quadratic form Φ(0)∗JΦ(t) has precisely ν+(λ) positive eigenvalues and ν (λ) negative eigenvalues, and 0 is not an eigenvalue because λ is − E non-degenerate. By continuity of the eigenvalues of finite dimensional matrices, these proper- ties remain conserved for small t. But ν(Φ(t)∗JΦ(t)) is precisely the sum of the inertias of all eigenvalues converging to λ as t 0. ✷ → 16 3.4 Krein stability analysis Proposition 18 Let λ be a simple normal unit eigenvalue of T U( ,J). Then there is a neighborhood of T such that the eigenvalue close to λ stays on the unit∈ circle.K Proof. This follows from the symmetry of the spectrum of T stating that, if λ is an eigenvalue, 1 so is λ− . Thus if λ would leave the unit circle, it would have to lead to two eigenvalues. ✷ Proposition 18 is of elementary nature. However, it does not allow to say anything about structural stability in presence of degenerate eigenvalues appearing. These issues were first addressed by Krein, and the following result is basically due to him [Kre] and Gelfand and Lidskii [GL]. Theorem 4 Let λ be an normal unit eigenvalue of T U( ,J). Suppose that λ is definite. Then there is a neighborhood of T in which all operators∈ haveK the property that all eigenvalues close to λ lay on the unit circle and have diagonal Jordan blocks. First proof. Let us suppose the contrary. Then there exists a sequence of J-unitary operators 1 (Tn)n 1 converging to T with corresponding eigenvalues (λn)n 1 converging to λ S such that ≥ ≥ ∈ for each n either (i) λ = 1 or (ii) λ = 1 with a non-diagonal Jordan block. Let φ be | n| 6 | n| n ∈ K corresponding normalized eigenvectors, namely Tnφn = λnφn, such that φn∗ Jφn =0 for all n 1. Indeed, this holds in case (i) for all eigenvectors due to Proposition 12 (applied with two equal≥ eigenvalues) and in case (ii) it can be assured due to Corollary 2(i). By weak compactness of the set of unit vectors, there now exists a subsequence also denoted by φn that converges weakly to a vector φ. Then, for any ψ , ∈K ψ∗Tφ = lim ψ∗Tφn = lim ψ∗(T Tn)φn + ψ∗Tnφn = λ ψ∗φ . n n →∞ →∞ − Thus Tφ = λφ and similarly φ∗Jφ =0 so that λ would not be definite. ✷ Second proof. Let t T (t) be the path of J-unitaries with T (0) = T . By Proposition 17 the inertia has to stay definite7→ for t sufficiently small. Hence it cannot leave the unit circle because this would lead to an indefinite inertia of the eigenvalue group by Proposition 14. ✷ Let us point out that both non-trivial Jordan blocks with eigenvalues on S1 and diagonal Jordan blocks with mixed inertia are unstable in the sense that in any neighborhood of them are operators with eigenvalues off the unit circle. This can be shown by adapting the arguments in finite dimension from [YS].
3.5 The twisted graph of a J-unitary This section is an improved and generalized version of what is given in [SB2]. Let us associate to an operator T on = a new operator T = 1 T on = where the denotes the symplectic checkerK boardH ⊕ sum H given by ⊕ K K⊕K ⊕ b b ab 0 b 0 b a b a′ b′ 0 a′ 0 b′ = . (18) c d ⊕ c′ d′ c 0 d 0 0 c′ 0 d′ b 17 If T U( ,J), then T = 1 T is in the group U( , J) of operators conserving the form J = ∈ K ⊕ K J J. The stereographic projection from L( , J) to U( ) defined as in (7) is denoted by π. ⊕ K K Furthermore, one can alsob defineb the symplectic sumb ofb frames by b b b b a 0 b a a′ 0 a′ = . a, b, a′, b′ B( ) . (19) b ⊕ b′ b 0 ∈ H 0 b′ b If Φ and Ψ are J-Lagrangian, then Φ Ψ is J-Lagrangian. Let us use a particular frame which is not of this form: ⊕ 1 b b 0 1 1 0 Ψ0 = . (20) √2 1 0 0 1 b One has Ψ0∗ J Ψ0 =0 so that Ψ0 defines a J-Lagrangian subspace. Moreover, 1 0 1 π(Ψ0) b b b π(Ψ0)b = ,b Ψ0 = . (21) 1 0 √2 1 b b Note that in our notationsb b the hat always designatesb objects in the doubled Krein space , but, moreover, T is a particular operator in U( , J) associated to a given T U( ,J). Now asK Ψ is K ∈ K 0 J-Lagrangian, so is T Ψ0 and one can therefore associate a unitary π(T Ψ0) to it. This unitaryb will turn outb to be particularly useful forb theb spectral analysis of T U( ,J) (see Theoremb 6 ∈ K below).b b b b b b Theorem 5 To a given T U( ,J) let us associate a unitary V (T ) by ∈ K
V (T ) = π(Ψ )∗ π(T Ψ ) U( ) . (22) 0 0 ∈ K If T = a b , then c d b b b b b 1 1 1 1 a bd− c bd− (a∗)− bd− V (T ) = − 1 1 = 1 1 . d− c d− d− c d− − − Furthermore V (T ) = πb (T Ψ ). The map T U( ,J) V (T ) U( ) is a continuous dense Ψ0 0 embedding with image ∈ K 7→ ∈ K b b b α β U( ) α, δ invertible . (23) γ δ ∈ K ∈
Proof. By (12) one has d∗d 1 so that d is invertible (similarly a is invertible). Now by (14), ≥ 1 0 0 0 0 a 0 b 0 1 T π(Ψ0) = , · 0 0 1 0 · 1 0 0 c 0 d b 18 so that writing out the Möbius transformation, one gets
1 1 0 1 1 0 − 0 1 d− 0 d 0 T π(Ψ0) = = 1 . · a b c d a b 0 d− c 1 − From thisb the first formula for V (T ) follows, and the second results from the relations in U( ,J). Clearly its upper left and lower right entries, the matrices denoted by α and δ in (23),K are invertible. It can readily be checked that V (T ) is equal to πb (T Ψ ) and not just unitarily Ψ0 0 equivalent to it as in (8). Finally let us show that the map T U( ,J) V (T ) b U(b )b is surjective onto the set ∈ K 7→ ∈ K1 1 1 (23). Indeed, given an element of this set, it is natural to set d = δ− , b = βδ− , c = δ− γ and 1 − a = α βδ− γ. With some care one then checks that the equations in (12) indeed hold. ✷ − Proposition 19 Given T U( ,J), one has ∈ K 1 1 V (T )− = V (T )∗ = V (T − ) = JV (T ∗) J.
1 Proof. Using T − = JT ∗J, one finds
1 1 1 1 a− c∗(d∗)− a− a− b V (T ∗) = 1 1 = 1 1 , (d∗)− b∗ (d∗)− ca− (d∗)− − − and 1 1 1 1 1 a− a− b a− c∗(d∗)− V (T − ) = 1 − 1 = 1 − 1 . (24) ca− (d∗)− (d∗)− b∗ (d∗)− This shows the claim. ✷
The following result justifies the above construction and, in particular, the choice of Ψ0.
Theorem 6 Let T and V (T ) be as in Theorem 5. Then b geometric multiplicity of 1 as eigenvalue of T = multiplicity of 1 as eigenvalue of V (T ) , and the eigenvectors coincide.
Proof. One then has for all vectors v, v′,w,w′ ∈ H w v w v V (T ) = ′ T = ′ , w v ⇐⇒ v w ′ ′ as can readily be seen by writing everything out:
1 1 a bd− c bd− w v′ a b w v′ − 1 1 = = . d− c d− w v ⇐⇒ c d v w − ′ ′ In particular, studying an eigenvalue λ of T one has w λw w w V (T ) = T = λ , (25) λ v v ⇐⇒ v v 19 or similarly eigenvalues λ of V : w w w λw V (T ) = λ T = , (26) w w ⇐⇒ λw w ′ ′ ′ ′ λw which means that T conserses the length of w′ . Both equations are particularly interesting in the case λ =1: w w w w V (T ) = T = . (27) v v ⇐⇒ v v This equivalence proves the theorem. ✷ Remark An alternative proof of Theorem 6 is obtained by studying the Bott-Maslov intersection of T Ψ0 with Ψ0. Suppose that these frames have a non-trivial intersection. This means that v v′ there are vectors v,w,v′,w′ such that such Ψ0 w = T Ψ0 w′ . The first and third line of ∈ H v v thisb vectorb equalityb imply w = w′ and v = v′, the other two that T = . This shows w w b b b geometric multiplicity of 1 as eigenvalue of T = dim T Ψ Ψ . 0 K ∩ 0 K But now Proposition 5 can be applied to calculate the r.h.s., and thisb b leads againb to a proof of Theorem 6. ⋄ Remark If w is an eigenvector of T U( ,J) with eigenvalue off the unit circle, then w = v ∈ K k k v . Indeed, by (25) and the fact that V (T ) is unitary and therefore isometric follows that k k w 2 + λ 2 v 2 = λ 2 w 2 + v 2 . k k | | k k | | k k k k As λ =1 the claim follows. This fact is compatible with the fact that the eigenspace with λ | | 6 Eλ a normal eigenvalue off the unit circle is J-orthogonal to itself (see Proposition 12). However, in the above argument it is not required that λ is normal. ⋄ Theorem 6 as well as the connection between eigenvectors can easily be adapted to study other eigenvalues on the unit circle. Indeed, if T v = zv for z S1, then also (z T )v = v. But the operator z T is also J-unitary so that one can apply the above∈ again to construct an associated unitary. This shows the following.
Proposition 20 Let T = a b be a J-unitary and set, for z S1, c d ∈ 1 1 z (a∗)− bd− V (z T ) = π(Ψ0)∗ π(z T Ψ0) = 1 1 . (28) d− c zd− − Then b b b c b geometric multiplicity of z as eigenvalue of T = multiplicity of 1 as eigenvalue of V (z T ) .
Therefore, the unitaries V (z T ) are a tool to study eigenvalues of T which lie on the unit circle. Let us focus again on z = 1. Theorem 6 concerns the kernel of V (T ) 1. It is natural − to analyze how much more spectrum V (T ) has close to 1, or, what is equivalent, how much 1 spectrum the self-adjoint operator e(V (T )) = 2 (V (T )+V (T )∗) has close to 1. For this purpose let us calculate e(V (T )). ℜ ℜ 20 Proposition 21 Let T be a J-unitary and V (T ) as above. Then
1 e(V (T )) = (1 + T ) 1 + T ∗T − (1 + T )∗ 1 . (29) ℜ − Proof. Let us begin by calculating 1 1 e(V (T )) = (V (T )+ V (T )∗) = (V (T )+ 1)(V (T )+ 1)∗ 1 . ℜ 2 2 − 1 Now V (T )= π(Ψ0)∗ π(T Ψ0). The frame Ψ0 defined as in (20) satisfies Ψ0∗Ψ0 = . On the other hand, T Ψ0 is not a frame, but b b b b b b b b 1 2 b b Φ = T Ψ0 (T Ψ0)∗T Ψ0 − . is a frame with range equal to theb rangeb ofb T Ψb0.b Furthermore,b b using the representation formula (6) for Lagrangian frames by their unitaries as well as (21), one shows that there is a unitary U U( ) such that b b ∈ K ∗ 1 π(T Ψ0) π(Ψ0) 1 U Φ∗Ψ = = (V (T )∗ + 1) 0 2 1 1 2 b b b b b Replacing this in the aboveb b shows that
1 e(V (T )) = 2 Ψ∗Φ Φ∗Ψ 1 = 2 Ψ∗T Ψ (T Ψ )∗T Ψ − (T Ψ )∗Ψ 1 . ℜ 0 0 − 0 0 0 0 0 0 − Hence remains to calculateb b theb b appearing products:b b b b b b b b b b
0 1 ∗ 0 1 1 a b a b 1 1 (T Ψ0)∗T Ψ0 = = ( + T ∗T ) , 2 1 0 1 0 2 c d c d b b b b and 0 1 ∗ 0 1 1 1 0 a b 1 1 (Ψ0)∗T Ψ0 = = ( + T ) . 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 c d b b b Replacing shows the claim. ✷
at bt Proposition 22 Let t Tt = be a differentiable path in U( ,J). Then 7→ ct dt K 1 0 ∗ 1 0 V (Tt)∗∂tV (Tt) = 1 1 Tt∗J∂tTt 1 1 . d− c d− d− c d− − t t t − t t t
21 Proof. First of all,
V (T )∗∂ V (T ) = π(T Ψ )∗ ∂ π(T Ψ ) = T π(Ψ )∗ ∂ T π(Ψ ) . t t t t 0 t t 0 t · 0 t t · 0 Now one can apply Proposition 22 inb b the Kreinb spaceb ( ,bJ): b b b b b K b b
V (Tt)∗∂tV (Tt) = A∗ Ψ0∗Tt∗Jb ∂tbTtΨ0 A, where the second identity in (21) was also used andb Ab isb givenb b by
1 0 0 1 0 − 1 0 A = π(Ψ0)+ = 1 1 . 0 c 0 d d− c d− t t − t t t Now the result follows from consecutivelyb b using the identities
T ∗J ∂ T = 0 T ∗J ∂ T , Ψ∗ 0 T Ψ = T, t t t ⊕ t t t 0 ⊕ 0 ✷ in the above. b b b b b b b As a further preparation for applications below, let us calculate the derivative of V (z T ) w.r.t. the phase z = eıt S1 and thus set ∈
1 ıt ıt Q (T ) = V (e− T )∗ ∂ V (e− T ) . (30) z ı t This is a self-adjoint operator on and can hence also be interpreted as a quadratic form which by the following result is non-degenerate.K
a b Proposition 23 Let T = c d be a J-unitary. Then